Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2020-04-24 Thread Henning Westerholt 
Hello,

Thanks for the testing, done for 5.3 branch.

Cheers,

Henning

--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/>

From: sr-users  On Behalf Of Sergiu Pojoga
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:14 PM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

Hi there,

To finalize this matter, any chance this gets backported to stable branches now 
that the new nathelper nat_addr_mode modparam has been tested?

Thanks.
--Sergiu

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Sergiu Pojoga 
mailto:pojo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Daniel,

Voilà: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2277

Thanks,
--Sergiu

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla 
mailto:mico...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello,

better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs or 
closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal and likely 
the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference the old one if 
there are relevant details.

Cheers,
Daniel
On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
Hi,

It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case involving 
rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test() or more likely 
fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29<http://192.0.0.0/29> subnet as 
private.

Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone has the 
desire to look into it, https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488

Thanks,
--Sergiu

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba 
mailto:d.tr...@pocos.nl>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
> > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for 
> > 192.0.0.0/29<http://192.0.0.0/29>
> > I think that's a great idea.
...
> I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
> appropriate git magic.S

I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users


___

Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>

https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

--

Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com>

www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- 
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2020-04-23 Thread Sergiu Pojoga 
Hi there,

To finalize this matter, any chance this gets backported to stable branches
now that the new nathelper nat_addr_mode modparam has been tested?

Thanks.
--Sergiu

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Sergiu Pojoga  wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Voilà: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2277
>
> Thanks,
> --Sergiu
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
> mico...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs
>> or closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal and
>> likely the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference the old
>> one if there are relevant details.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>> On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
>> involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test()
>> or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29 subnet as
>> private.
>>
>> Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone
>> has the desire to look into it,
>> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Sergiu
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
>>> > > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
>>> 192.0.0.0/29
>>> > > I think that's a great idea.
>>> ...
>>> > I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
>>> > appropriate git magic.S
>>>
>>> I lied:
>>> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing 
>> Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>> --
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- 
>> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>
>>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2020-04-07 Thread Sergiu Pojoga 
Hi Daniel,

Voilà: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2277

Thanks,
--Sergiu

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs
> or closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal and
> likely the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference the old
> one if there are relevant details.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
> involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test()
> or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29 subnet as
> private.
>
> Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone
> has the desire to look into it,
> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>
> Thanks,
> --Sergiu
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
>> > > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
>> 192.0.0.0/29
>> > > I think that's a great idea.
>> ...
>> > I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
>> > appropriate git magic.S
>>
>> I lied:
>> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>>
>> ___
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing 
> Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- 
> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2020-04-07 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla 
Hello,

better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs
or closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal
and likely the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference
the old one if there are relevant details.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
> involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though
> either nat_uac_test() or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the
> 192.0.0.0/29  subnet as private.
>
> Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if
> someone has the desire to look into
> it, https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>
> Thanks,
> --Sergiu
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba  > wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
> > > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check
> for 192.0.0.0/29 
> > > I think that's a great idea.
> ...
> > I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
> > appropriate git magic.S
>
> I lied:
> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org 
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2020-04-07 Thread Sergiu Pojoga 
Hi,

It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test()
or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29 subnet as
private.

Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone has
the desire to look into it, https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488

Thanks,
--Sergiu

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
> > > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
> 192.0.0.0/29
> > > I think that's a great idea.
> ...
> > I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
> > appropriate git magic.S
>
> I lied:
> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2018-03-23 Thread Daniel Tryba 
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
> > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for 192.0.0.0/29
> > I think that's a great idea.
...
> I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
> appropriate git magic.S

I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2018-03-23 Thread Daniel Tryba 
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
> If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for 192.0.0.0/29
> I think that's a great idea.

Don't know if I got every use in the source tree of private nets, but
following diff should do the trick. This net can be used for ip4<->ipv6<->ipv4 
NAT translations. So 6TO4-RELAY in ipops fits better than PRIVATE. But is 
simply 
indicates NAT transversal for the nathelper module.

I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
appropriate git magic.

diff --git a/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c 
b/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c
index a37c4aacc..529645e99 100644
--- a/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c
+++ b/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ static ip4_node IPv4ranges[IPv4RANGES_SIZE] = {
 { 0xc0586300,  "6TO4-RELAY", 0xff00 },  // 192.88.99.0/24
 { 0xc200,  "TEST-NET",   0xff00 },  // 192.0.2/24
 { 0xc000,  "RESERVED",   0xff00 },  // 192.0.0/24
+{ 0xc000,  "6TO4-RELAY", 0xfff8 },  // 192.0.0.0/29
 { 0xc0a8,  "PRIVATE",0x },  // 192.168/16
 { 0xa9fe,  "LINK-LOCAL", 0x },  // 169.254/16
 { 0xc612,  "RESERVED",   0xfffe },  // 198.18/15
diff --git a/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c 
b/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
index ead4c696f..710d281f5 100644
--- a/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
+++ b/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static NetInfo rfc1918nets[] = {
{"172.16.0.0", 0xac10UL, 0xfff0UL},
{"192.168.0.0", 0xc0a8UL, 0xUL},
{"100.64.0.0", 0x6440UL, 0xffc0UL}, // include rfc6598 shared 
address space as technically the same for our purpose
+   {"192.0.0.0", 0xc000UL, 0xfff8UL}, // include rfc7335 IPv4 
Service Continuity Prefix
{NULL, 0UL, 0UL}
 };
 
@@ -2156,4 +2157,4 @@ int mod_register(char *path, int *dlflags, void *p1, void 
*p2)
 {
sr_kemi_modules_add(sr_kemi_nat_traversal_exports);
return 0;
-}
\ No newline at end of file
+}
diff --git a/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c 
b/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c
index a45588a50..935c981ee 100644
--- a/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c
+++ b/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c
@@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ static struct {
{"172.16.0.0",  0, 0xu << 20},
{"192.168.0.0", 0, 0xu << 16},
{"100.64.0.0",  0, 0xu << 22}, /* rfc6598 - cg-nat */
+   {"192.0.0.0",   0, 0xu <<  3}, /* rfc7335 - IPv4 Service 
Continuity Prefix */
{NULL, 0, 0}
 };
 /* clang-format on */


___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2018-03-22 Thread John Petrini 
If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for 192.0.0.0/29
I think that's a great idea.
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2018-03-22 Thread Daniel Tryba 
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:05:15AM -0400, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
> When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier, I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4
> 192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address
> and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails.

Looking at the table at the bottom of
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml

Should't the check be updated to include 192.0.0.0/29?

It is explicitly defined for NAT and has the exact same properties as
RFC1918 and RFC6598 addresses.

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2018-03-21 Thread John Petrini 
You could do something like below to check specifically for that case and
override the uac test.

if (sdp_get_line_startswith("$avp(cline)", "c="))
$var(sdp_contact_host) = $(avp(cline){re.subst,/c=IN IP4 (.+)/\1/});


if (is_in_subnet("$avp(sdp_contact_host)", "192.0.0.0/29"))
.
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

[SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)

2018-03-21 Thread Sergiu Pojoga 
When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier, I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4
192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address
and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails.

What elegant workaround can be done to catch such specific cases?

Thanks.
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users